Since the Sammy Woodhouse story first hit the news on Tuesday the shape of the campaign she has launched for a change in the law relating to the rights of rapist fathers has apparently gone through a number of changes.

A High Court judge has recently said that when the Court of Protection sits in open court, so that members of the public can attend if they wish, the barristers should all be wearing wigs and gowns as they do in most other courts, to send a clear message about transparency and open justice.

Today sees another Andrew Norfolk front page article in The Times about the wrongs committed in the Family Court and by social services. Sadly, just like last time, this is a sensationalised headline and article which ignores some important facts and legal context.

This is a guest post by a social work manager who wishes to remain anonymous. It responds to an article by journalist and Transparency Project member Louise Tickle which appeared in the Guardian last week.

Rule-makers often make things needlessly difficult for parties to family proceedings. An example, for which there should have been no need if the rule-makers took a little care (and co-operated with one another) is for those involved appeals from family courts decisions.

In her Guardian article, ‘Why do we separate the mother and child victims of domestic abuse’ (20 November 2018) Louise Tickle drew attention to the dire circumstances of mothers who lost their children because of domestic violence.